TTIP

Status
Not open for further replies.
The what now? Surely it's beyond obvious that an institution with a £100bn+ budget is not getting that from the money tree, but the fact that the NHS is free at the point of delivery is one of the three founding principles of the NHS.

http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/thenhs/about/Pages/nhscoreprinciples.aspx

Indeed, I quote from the latest constitution, published in 2011:

"NHS services are free of charge, except in limited circumstances sanctioned by Parliament"

As for convenience and simplification, I haven't mentioned anything of the sort. I outlined many challenges facing healthcare provision in the west. If you've offered a solution to any of them then I apologise for missing them.

Some restaurants are free at the point of delivery and then the bill turns up at the end, the system the US has generally I believe, with, as per insurance, many hidden surprises.

As pointed out once the insurance companies start delving into dna etc and use predictability models only few could afford healthcare.
 

Well, yes, obviously it isn't free, but your ability to receive care isn't reliant upon you having paid in enough to cover it. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of that method, I can't see it changing regardless of whether TTIP gets passed.

I thank you for not bothering with any of the other stuff I mentioned. Simple answers aren't generally going to help something as complex as the NHS though.



As above, you haven't addressed any of the concerns I raised, nor even the very clear strategy document published by the boss of the NHS, Simon Stevens. I suppose expecting anything else is too much.

Simon Stevens is a political appointment who would not have got appointed unless he held the same views as those that appointed him. Same as Wilshaw at OFSTED. And said political masters can take notice or not take any notice of what their appointee says.

NHS boss Simon Stevens must explain his trade lobbying ...

NHS boss Stevens and the TTIP 'trade' lobbyists who ...

NHS boss Stevens and the TTIP 'trade' lobbyists who threaten our NHS
CAROLINE MOLLOY 23 October 2014
New NHS boss Simon Stevens ducks questions about his alleged connection to pro-TTIP treaty lobbyists pushing to open the NHS up further to profiteering US companies.

Health is worth trillions to global corporations lobbying for TTIP treaty

New NHS boss Simon Stevens faced a barrage of crowd-sourced questions on NHS privatisation this morning as he launched the “NHS 5 Year Forward Plan” on Radio 4’s Today Programme.

Not all of which he answered - particularly on the controversial TTIP deal that many campaigners see as threatening the NHS.

Presenter Sarah Montague read out a question: “People are concerned, not least because of trade talks that are going on which could mean that the NHS is forced to open up under TTIP to American Companies… Does Simon Stevens think he can be unbiased on TTIP given his links to a pro-TTIP lobby group when he was at UnitedHealth”?

Stevens refused to be drawn on his views or lobbying on TTIP - the controversial trade talks currently underway between the EU and the US.

“My commitment is to the National Health Service - it’s where I began my career 26 years ago…I’m optimistic”.

“Ok, but you haven’t actually answered”, commented presenter Sarah Montague.

As the Today programme closed, Times columnist Camilla Cavendish asserted that the response to such fears was, “we have to have confidence in Simon Stevens’ experience in America”.

Just what is this experience?

After a stint as Tony Blair's health advisor, Simon Stevens was ‘President of Global Affairs’ at American private healthcare giant UnitedHealth until last year.

In that role, according to Physicians for a National Health Programme, Stevens was a founder member of The Alliance for Healthcare Competitiveness - a pro-TTIP US lobby group pushing for the inclusion of health in the TTIP treaty. His role there has also been highlighted by The People's NHS.

Stevens also acted as a spokesman for the Alliance for Healthcare Competitiveness's pro-TTIP position.

In September 2011 - as health industry TTIP lobbying was already underwaybehind closed doors - the StarTribune reported “A coalition of U.S. health care businesses, including Minnesota-based UnitedHealth Group and Medtronic, proposes to rebuild America’s battered economy by selling the country’s ‘health ecosystem’ internationally. The Alliance for Healthcare Competitiveness (AHC) wants the U.S. government to build its foreign free-trade policy around the health care industry...”

The paper quoted Simon Stevens commenting on behalf of the AHC that:

“The worldwide need for health care in aging populations will lead to a demand for goods and services that can drive sales of American insurance, medical devices and record-keeping technology”.

The StarTribune goes on to admit that:

” …the U.S. health care system …is beset with skyrocketing costs and inefficiencies. Americans currently pay more for health care and rank lower in life expectancy and infant mortality than much of the developed world…The call to rebuild the U.S. economy by selling pieces of what is generally considered a broken health care system struck some experts as a bit awkward.”

Or, as “Physicians for a National Health Programme” put it, the aim of the AHC is to “to lobby for the export of the failing US model of healthcare abroad.”

But don’t take their word for it.

Look at what the AHC themselves said in their 2013 submission to the US Trade representative office negotiating on TTIP.

“The proposed TTIP is of great interest to our members as the European Union is the site of nearly a third of world health spending, the principal buyer of American exports of health products, and is experimenting with new approaches to health care systems… The health sector is the largest single component of the world economy.”

"In 2010, according to the World Bank, health accounted for almost $7 trillion of $63 trillion in global GDP…. The health sector will be one of the world’s main future drivers of demand and growth… This gives the United States a significant opportunity... We know that as hospitals gain rights of establishment abroad, they become natural buyers of American medical devices, natural users of American health IT systems, natural telemedicine customers of U.S.-based hospitals, and natural partners for American doctors and medical schools. Trade negotiations on behalf of the sector as a whole have the potential to unleash powerful synergies…”

The AHC say US trade negotiators must demand “full elimination of tariffs on all health goods”, from pharmaceuticals to furniture.

But that’s just for starters. “Non-tariff barriers… generally appearing as regulatory policies” are “the principal barrier…powerful obstacles”, they say.

So the AHC demands “regulations to help generate competition”, adding:

“Trade agreements are an opportunity to address these problems; further open healthcare services markets; impose disciplines on regulatory authority, including rules for technical standards and recognition of qualifications; and ensure that trade in health care services will reach its extraordinarily large potential.”

For pro TTIP health campaigners in the UK and the US Stevens was the 'right' appointment.
 
Exactly. And anyone who argues that we're safer from TTIP if we leave the EU is off their rocker.

If we were to sign a TTIP deal as an independent country, the people would have the power to vote for a government that would rip up the TTIP deal outside of the EU.

This is not the case if the EU sign the deal.
 
If we were to sign a TTIP deal as an independent country, the people would have the power to vote for a government that would rip up the TTIP deal outside of the EU.

This is not the case if the EU sign the deal.
The Tories want it and would push it through. Any other government that doesnt want it will be held over a barrel in any future trade negotiations.

There is less likelihood that the UK will get a raw deal by remaining in the EU.
 

TTIP trade talks: Greenpeace leak 'shows risks of EU-US deal'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36185746

EU standards on the environment and public health risk being undermined by compromises with the US, Greenpeace has warned, citing leaked documents.

The environmental group obtained 248 pages of classified documents from the TTIP trade talks, aimed at clinching a far-reaching EU-US free trade deal.

Secrecy surrounding the talks has fuelled fears that US corporations may erode Europe's consumer protections.

But the EU's top trade official denied any agenda to lower EU standards.

"I am simply not in the business of lowering standards," said EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstroem in her blog, after the Greenpeace leak was published.

TTIP's supporters say a deal would create many new business opportunities.

TTIP stands for Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. It would harmonise regulations across a huge range of business sectors, providing a boost to exporters on both sides of the Atlantic.

The 13th TTIP negotiating round took place last week and the European Commission says it hopes to achieve a deal later this year. That could avoid any political risk posed by the US presidential election in November.

The EU's chief negotiator, Ignacio Garcia Bercero, said some of Greenpeace's points were "flatly wrong", and stressed that the leaked text "is not a reflection of the outcome of the negotiation".

Mr Bercero said "it is not correct to say the US is pushing for lowering of the level of protection in the EU".

Greenpeace Netherlands says it obtained classified documents covering two-thirds of the areas discussed.

Corporate muscle
"These leaked documents confirm what we have been saying for a long time: TTIP would put corporations at the centre of policy-making, to the detriment of environment and public health," said Greenpeace EU director Jorgo Riss.

"We have known that the EU position was bad, now we see the US position is even worse."

_86675695_ttipmalmreut.jpg
Image copyrightReuters
Image captionEU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstroem is steering the TTIP talks, which began in 2013
_86675693_ttipbigreut.jpg
Image copyrightReuters
Image captionThere have been many big demonstrations against TTIP in Germany
Greenpeace says the texts reveal that the US wants to replace the EU's "precautionary principle" for potentially harmful products with the less strict US approach, which aims to manage risks rather than avoid them altogether.

The precautionary principle can force a manufacturer to prove the absence of danger from a product.

It applies, for example, to genetically modified organisms (GMOs), whose possible risks to the ecosystem and the food chain are hotly debated.

The US permits cultivation of more than 170 GM plants, whereas only one type - a maize variety - is approved for commercial cultivation in the EU.

Mr Bercero denied any intention to weaken the precautionary principle.

Greenpeace says the TTIP texts do not refer to the global commitment to cut CO2 emissions, as agreed at the Paris Summit on global warming. Yet the European Commission had pledged to make environmental sustainability part of any TTIP deal.

_89539236_ttipiowafarmgettyoct15.jpg
Image copyrightGetty Images
Image captionHarvest in Iowa: US-style intensive farming methods could spread to Europe
There is also widespread concern in the EU about the role of commercial arbitration courts, independent of national courts, where firms can sue governments under the World Trade Organization (WTO) rules.

It is one of the thorniest issues in the TTIP talks.

There are fears that big US corporations could put excessive legal pressure on some EU states. The threat of being sued could have a "chilling" effect on legislators, forcing them to water down welfare protections, critics argue.

Long way to go
The Commission and many politicians argue that TTIP would bring major benefits for the US and Europe.

Last week US President Barack Obama and Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel called jointly for a TTIP deal to be concluded this year. However, thousands of protesters turned out in Hanover in a rally against the deal.

A final TTIP text would require approval by all 28 EU governments and the European Parliament.

A study by the Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) estimated the potential gains for the EU as up to €119bn (£94bn; $137bn) a year and €95bn for the US.

The EU's chief negotiator said the 13th round of talks covered 97% of current tariff barriers, which cost EU exporters more than €3.5bn annually.

But Mr Bercero added that "there is still a lot of work to be done".

They were very far from agreement on public procurement, he explained. The EU wants US authorities to give European companies much more market access to compete for public contracts.

Among other tough issues, he said, were: the beef market, the services sector and the EU's protected geographical labels, such as Champagne and Gorgonzola.
 
Protest never changes anything? Look at how TTIP has been derailed
Owen Jones


Published: 06:00 BST Thursday, 05 May 2016

Follow Owen Jones


Illustration by Ben Jennings

People power has taken on big business over this transatlantic stitch-up and looks like winning. We should all be inspired
For those of us who want societies run in the interests of the majority rather than unaccountable corporate interests, this era can be best defined as an uphill struggle. So when victories occur, they should be loudly trumpeted to encourage us in a wider fight against a powerful elite of big businesses, media organisations, politicians, bureaucrats and corporate-funded thinktanks.

Today is one such moment. The Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership (TTIP) – that notorious proposed trade agreement that hands even more sweeping powers to corporate titans – lies wounded, perhaps fatally. It isn’t dead yet, but TTIP is a tangled wreckage that will be difficult to reassemble.

Doubts rise over TTIP as France threatens to block EU-US deal

Those of us who campaigned against TTIP – not least fellow Guardian columnist George Monbiot – were dismissed as scaremongering. We said that TTIP would lead to a race to the bottom on everything from environmental to consumer protections, forcing us down to the lower level that exists in the United States. We warned that it would undermine our democracy and sovereignty, enabling corporate interests to use secret courts to block policies that they did not like.

Scaremongering, we were told. But hundreds of leaked documents from the negotiations reveal, in some ways, that the reality is worse – and now the French government has been forced to suggest it may block the agreement.

The documents imply that even craven European leaders believe the US demands go too far. As War on Want puts it, they show that TTIP would “open the door” to products currently banned in the EU “for public health and environmental reasons”.

As the documents reveal, there are now “irreconcilable” differences between the European Union’s and America’s positions. According to Greenpeace, “the EU position is very bad, and the US position is terrible”.

The documents show that the US is actively trying to dilute EU regulations on consumer and environmental protections. In future, for the EU to be even able to pass a regulation, it could be forced to involve both US authorities and US corporations, giving big businesses across the Atlantic the same input as those based in Europe.

With these damning revelations, the embattled French authorities have been forced to say they reject TTIP “at this stage”. President Hollande says France would refuse “the undermining of the essential principles of our agriculture, our culture, of mutual access to public markets”. And with the country’s trade representative saying that “there cannot be an agreement without France and much less against France”, TTIP currently has a bleak future indeed.

mass demonstrations with up to 250,000 people participating.

From London to Warsaw, from Prague to Madrid, the anti-TTIP cause has marched. Members of the European parliament have been subjected to passionate lobbying by angry citizens. Without this popular pressure, TTIP would have received little scrutiny and would surely have passed – with disastrous consequences.

Second, this is a real embarrassment to the British government. Back in 2011, David Cameron vetoed an EU treaty to supposedly defend the national interest: in fact, he was worried that it threatened Britain’s financial sector. The City of London and Britain are clearly not the same thing. But Cameron has been among the staunchest champions of TTIP. He is more than happy to undermine British sovereignty and democracy, as long as it is corporate interests who are the beneficiaries.

And so we end in the perverse situation where it is the French government, rather than our own administration, protecting our sovereignty.

And third, this has real consequences for the EU referendum debate. Rather cynically, Ukip have co-opted the TTIP argument. They have rightly argued that TTIP threatens our National Health Service – but given that their leader, Nigel Farage, has suggested abolishing the NHS in favour of private health insurance, this is the height of chutzpah.

TTIP has been kicked into the long grass … for a very long time

Ukip have mocked those on the left, such as me, who back a critical remain position in the Brexit referendum over this issue. But if we were to leave the EU, not only would the social chapter and various workers’ rights be abandoned – and not replaced by our rightwing government – but Britain would end up negotiating a series of TTIP agreements. We would end up living with the consequences of TTIP, but without the remaining progressive elements of the EU.

Instead, we have seen what happens when ordinary Europeans put aside cultural and language barriers and unite. Their collective strength can achieve results. This should surely be a launchpad for a movement to build a democratic, accountable, transparent Europe governed in the interests of its citizens, not corporations. It will mean reaching across the Atlantic too.

For all President Obama’s hope-change rhetoric, his administration – which zealously promoted TTIP – has all too often championed corporate interests. However, though Bernie Sanders is unlikely to become the Democratic nominee, the incredible movement behind him shows – particularly among younger Americans – a growing desire for a different sort of US.

In the coming months, those Europeans who have campaigned against TTIP should surely reach out to their American counterparts. Even if TTIP is defeated, we still live in a world in which major corporations often have greater power than nation states: only organised movements that cross borders can have any hope of challenging this unaccountable dominance.

From tax justice to climate change, the “protest never achieves anything” brigade have been proved wrong. Here’s a potential victory to relish, and build on.
 

Government backdown. NHS to be excluded from any agreement.

A minor, if important, victory, then.

Cameron accepts TTIP amendment to mollify rebel Tory MPs
Peter Lilley led backbench revolt, joining Labour, SNP and Greens, over NHS status under trade deal



David Cameron speaks at a remain in EU campaign rally at a school in Witney, Oxfordshire Photograph: Eddie Keogh/Reuters

Anushka Asthana and Heather Stewart
Published:18:47 BST Thu 19 May 2016


David Cameron has moved to quell a rebellion by Conservative Eurosceptics over a controversial trade deal between the EU and US, after he faced the first government defeat on a Queen’s speech since 1924.

The prime minister has been forced to accept a critical amendment about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) after it was signed by 25 Tory backbenchers, and backed by Labour, SNP and Green MPs.

The politicians, led by the Conservative former cabinet minister Peter Lilley, expressed regret that the government did not include a bill in the Queen’s speech that would protect the NHS from the deal.

AdvertisementHide

A No 10 spokesman said: “As we’ve said all along, there is no threat to the NHS from TTIP. So if this amendment is selected, we’ll accept it.”

But members of Vote Leave said they were not reassured by the statement. Steve Baker, one of the signatories on the amendment and a leading figure for Brexit, said that by accepting the amendment the government was conceding that the trade deal did represent a risk for Britain’s health service.

What is TTIP and why should we be angry about it?

“The government has today admitted that the EU is a threat to our NHS. The only way we can protect the NHS from TTIP is if we vote to leave on 23 June.”

Earlier Baker, who chairs the Conservatives for Britain group, accused the remain campaign of orchestrating attacks on Brexit campaigners, in comments that were seen as criticism of Downing street.

“What I am saying is: please don’t anyone on any side follow a scorched earth policy. There have been too many instances where comment in the press from a campaigner has been followed by attacks on them personally. That must stop,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

Cameron was facing potential defeat on the TTIP vote after the Labour leader said he would support the amendment.

Jeremy Corbyn, speaking at the launch of an event about workers’ rights in Stroud, said he would be happy to vote with pro-Brexit Tories. “Yes we will be backing that,” he said.

“I would personally go much further because my concerns about TTIP are not just about the effect on public services but also the principle of investor protection that goes within TTIP – planned rules which would in effect almost enfranchise global corporations at the expense of national governments. This protection of the NHS is an important step but it’s not the whole step.”

The amendment was being tabled jointly by Lilley and Labour backbencher Paula Sherriff, who was involved in the “tampon tax” campaign to force George Osborne to cut VAT on sanitary products. It expresses regret that there was no bill to protect the NHS from TTIP, a trade deal being hammered out between the EU and US.

Lilley said: “I support free trade. But TTIP introduces special courts, which are not necessary for free trade, will give American multinationals the right to sue our government (but not vice versa) and could put our NHS at risk. I cannot understand why the government has not tried to exclude the NHS.”

Sherriff described it as “another humiliating climb-down” by Downing Street. “They will now be the first government in history to official ‘regret’ their own programme within days of announcing it, just months after doing the same on their budget.”

Nick Dearden, director of campaign group Global Justice Now, said: “The fact that the government is facing a backbench rebellion on the Queen’s speech over the issue of TTIP is testament to just how toxic an issue this trade deal has become. In the space of a couple of years, TTIP has gone from an obscure acronym to a massively controversial issue.”

Jezzer on the money, as usual.
 
Those in favour of TTIP always said that it would not mean the NHS would be up for grabs by US health companies. They constantly said 'trust us' while they negotiated behind closed doors. Every time there was some sort of exposure about how TTIP would see the NHS fully privatised with a health insurance policy they said, 'the NHS will not be up for grabs. A US style health service will not happen. It's scaremongering. The NHS will always be free at the point of delivery' etc.etc. etc..

It has took the political civil war in the Tory party to fully expose what TTIP would mean for the NHS. Those wanting to leave the EU broke rank and used the NHS to try and gain ground on those that want to remain. They blew the cover of what TTIP would really mean for the NHS. Some even did a 180% U-turn and declared that TTIP would be the 'worse thing to happen to the UK since the second world war. A national health crisis would emerge on an unprecedented scale'. Even though, they were in favour of TTIP last year, they are now solidly 'fundamentally' against.

This has forced the government to declare that there would be an 'amendment' to the Queens speech and add a Bill that would 'protect the NHS'.

"Lilley said: “I support free trade. But TTIP introduces special courts, which are not necessary for free trade, will give American multinationals the right to sue our government (but not vice versa) and could put our NHS at risk. I cannot understand why the government has not tried to exclude the NHS.”

It is a wonder that Lilley is not accused of being a 'scare monger,' an accusation slung at those who have been against TTIP for ages.

TTIP is far from being dead in the water. As a result the 'protection' of the NHS from being fully privatised by a Bill is ludicrous. The aim of Cameron/Osborne on one side and Johnson/Gove/Duncan Smith on the other, has always been a fully privatised health service - a shift of taxpayers money away from the state and into private hands. The French got their film industry protected by insisting that exclusions be inserted in any document. The exclusion of the NHS is not included in any document, and unlikely at this late stage to be.

To save his political bacon Cameron is attempting to hoodwink people. On the NHS and TTIP the horse has already bolted and the US health companies will not allow the NHS billions not to be up for grabs.

If the UK leaves the EU and tries to negotiate a separate trade deal with the US, the NHS billions will be included.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Shop

Back
Top